Ex Parte DAYAL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

12486816 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/486,816 06/18/2009 UMESHW AR DAY AL
56436 7590 12/30/2015
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82250837 5987
EXAMINER
CONAWAY, JAMES E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2015 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UMESHW AR DAY AL,
RA VIGOPAL VENNELAKANTI, RATNESH KUMAR SHARMA,
MARIA G. GASTELLANOS, MING C. HAO,
CHANDRAKANT PATEL, SANGAMESH S. BELLAD,
and MANI SH GUPTA
Appeal2013-008476
Application 12/486,816
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-008476
Application 12/486,816
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4--12, 15-20, 22-24, and 26-32,
which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to a collaborative business intelligence
mechanism for performing analysis in response to an event. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method of providing collaborative business
intelligence in an enterprise, comprising:
providing, by a system including at least one computer,
an analytics platform to receive an event associated with the
enterprise and to perform analysis in response to the event;
providing, by the system, a virtual collaboration platform
to enable plural users to interact with each other in performing
the analysis and to use resources of the analytics platform;
in response to detecting the event, initiating a
collaborative business intelligence session that employs the
analytics platform and the virtual collaboration platform;
accessing at least one map to identify, based on the
detected event, the resources of the analytics platform to load
into the collaborative business intelligence session, wherein the
map is to map different events to respective resources that are
to be added to the collaborative business intelligence session,
and wherein the identified resources comprise at least one
1 The real parties in interest are identified as Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, LP, Hewlett-Packard Company, and HPQ Holdings, LLC. (App.
Br. 1.)
2
Appeal2013-008476
Application 12/486,816
software application to be executed m the collaborative
business intelligence session;
executing the at least one software application in the
collaborative business intelligence session, where the executing
causes running of a simulation; and
based on the simulation, requesting additional resources
to load into the collaborative business intelligence session.
Re} ections2
Claims 18-20, 26, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
(Final Act. 2-3 (mailed Sept. 13, 2012).)
Claims 1, 4--12, 15, 18, 19, 23, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kass-Hout (US 2009/0319295 Al;
published Dec. 24, 2009) and Kalley (US 2006/0253531 Al; published Nov.
9, 2006). (Final Act. 3-14.)
Claims 16, 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kass-Hout, Kalley, and Flockhart (US 7,787,609 Bl;
issued Aug. 31, 2010). (Final Act. 14--16.)
Claims 22, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kass-Hout, Kalley, and Hintermeister (US 2008/0126480
Al; published May 29, 2008). (Final Act. 16-18.)
Claims 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kass-Hout, Kalley, and Werme (US 7,181,743 B2; issued Feb. 20,
2007). (Final Act. 18-20.)
2 Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 21, and 25 have been cancelled. (Response filed May
4, 2012.) The Examiner withdraws the objection and rejection of claims 15
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph. (Ans. 4; Final Act. 2.)
3
Appeal2013-008476
Application 12/486,816
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 6-18; Reply Br. 2-10). We agree
with Appellants' contention (App. Br. 8, 9) that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 18-20, 26, and 30 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions as to the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the Section 103 rejections, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken and as set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (see Ans.
26-30).
We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.
Written Description Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the Specification does
not support invoking another resource in response to a result of a simulation,
as required in independent claim 18. (App. Br. 8, 9; Reply Br. 2, 3.)
Appellants cite paragraphs 56 and 61 of the originally filed Specification in
support, explaining that the Specification provides an implicit disclosure of
invoking in response to a result of a simulation. (Reply Br. 2, 3.) The
Examiner finds the cited Specification portions describe invoking another
resource as part of running a simulation, rather than invoking another
resource in response to a result of the simulation. (Ans. 24.)
We disagree with the Examiner's finding. We have reviewed
Appellants' Specification and concur with Appellants' conclusion of
4
Appeal2013-008476
Application 12/486,816
Examiner error. Although the Examiner is correct that paragraphs 61 and 56
in the originally filed Specification do not use the phrase in response to a
result of a simulation, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
Specification to at least imply that, if additional resources are invoked as
part of running the simulations, it is in response to a result of the
simulations. Appellants' Figure 6 (described in paragraph 56) shows
additional resources are requested at step 616, after at least beginning
simulations at step 614, which further confirms that invoking additional
resources is related to a result of the simulations. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 18 and dependent
claims 19, 20, 26, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Obviousness Rejections
Claims 1, 4--12, 15, 18-20, 22-24, and 26-28
Appellants argue Kass-Hout and Kalley do not teach executing the at
least one software application in the collaborative business intelligence
session, where the executing causes running of a simulation, and based on
the simulation, requesting additional resources, as recited in claim 1. (App.
Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 5-7.)
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because Appellants
improperly attack Kass-Hout and Kalley individually where the rejection is
based on a combination of Kass-Hout and Kalley. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, Appellants argue Kalley does not
teach the executing causes running of a simulation (Reply Br. 5; App. Br.
11). The Examiner, however, relies on Kass-Hout for this feature (Ans. 26,
27; Final Act. 4, 5 (citing Kass-Hout i-fi-152, 83, 84, Figs. 3A, 5C)).
5
Appeal2013-008476
Application 12/486,816
Appellants also argue Kass-Hout does not teach at least one software
application resource (Reply Br. 6, 7; App. Br. 12, 13). The Examiner,
however, relies on Kalley for this feature (Ans. 27; Final Act. 5-6 (citing
Kalley i-fi-154, 59)). Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner's findings as to the combined teachings of Kass-Hout
and Kalley, in which the Examiner adds Kalley's software application to
Kass-Rout's resources and simulation to improve group collaboration and
enhance available resources. (Ans. 27 (citing Kass-Hout i-fi-152, 83); Final
Act. 6 (citing Kalleyi-fi-f 124, 144, Fig. 4).)
Appellants also argue that because Kass-Rout's linking of information
sources is not similar to Kalley's loading of an application, the Examiner's
combination of Kass-Hout and Kalley is improper. (App. Br. 12, 13.) The
Examiner has provided sufficient articulation for combining Kalley's
technique of sharing software applications in an event-response
collaboration system with Kass-Rout's collaborative system linking event-
relevant sources to improve group collaboration by enhancing the available
resources (Ans. 27, 28), thereby supporting the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellants'
arguments have not persuaded us of reversible error in Examiner's
reasomng.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kass-Hout and
Kalley. The rejections of dependent claims 4--12, 27, and 28, which are not
argued separately (App. Br. 10), are sustained for the same reasons.
6
Appeal2013-008476
Application 12/486,816
Appellants contend the rejection of independent claims 18 and 23 is in
error for the same reasons as claim 1. (App. Br. 14, 15.) Appellants further
recite the language of claims 18 and 23 and assert the recited limitations are
not found in the prior art. (App. Br. 14, 15.) Such arguments are not
substantive arguments of Examiner error. (See 37 CPR 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not
be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.").) Thus,
for the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejection of independent
claims 18 and 23, which Appellants do not argue with particularity.
Appellants' arguments directed to the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 15, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26 assert the rejection of these
claims is in error for the same reasons as independent claims 1, 18, and 23.
(App. Br. 16.). Accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner's rejection
of these claims.
Claims 16 and 1 7
Claim 16 depends from claim 23 and recites a model to map events to
experts and to allow identification of one or more experts to the users in
response to the detected event. The Examiner finds Kalley maps a fire event
to multiple firefighters, and it would have been obvious to duplicate the
event/expert functionality of Kalley to map multiple events to multiple
firefighters. (Final Act. 14; Ans. 28.) According to the Examiner,
duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced, and no new or unexpected results would flow
from the addition of more events. (Ans. 29.) Appellants argue that a new
and unexpected result is that the claimed subject matter provides more
7
Appeal2013-008476
Application 12/486,816
flexibility than what is disclosed in Kalley. (Reply Br. 8, 9.) We do not find
this argument persuasive. The premise that mapping multiple events to
multiple firefighters is more flexible than mapping a single event to multiple
firefighters is not considered new or unexpected.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kass-Hout, Kalley, and Flockhart,
and claim 17 for which Appellants provide the same arguments (App. Br.
16).
Claims 29-32
Claim 29 depends from claim 1 and recites requesting the additional
resources comprises requesting another software application to load in the
collaborative business intelligence session, based on the simulation. The
Examiner finds it would have been obvious to augment the functionality of
Kass-Rout's Google earth simulation by requesting interdependent
applications such as plug-ins (Ans. 29 (citing Kass-Hout i-f 48)), as prompted
by Werme, which teaches loading interdependent applications (Final Act. 18
(citing Werme col. 8, 11. 17-19) ).
Appellants argue neither Werme nor Kass-Hout teaches a request to
load another software application based on a simulation. (App. Br. 17;
Reply Br. 10.) Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's
specific findings that it would have been obvious to load plug-in applications
in connection with Kass-Rout's simulation. Instead, Appellants argue
specific aspects of Werme and Kass-Hout with respect to the software
application, for which the Examiner relies on Kalley. Moreover, we concur
with the Examiner's findings and evidence. Accordingly, we sustain the
8
Appeal2013-008476
Application 12/486,816
Examiner's rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kass-Hout, Kalley, and Werme, and claims 30-32 for which Appellants
provide the same arguments (App. Br. 18).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--12, 15-20, 22-24, and
26-32 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
kme
9